I've posted previously about how a Muslim repatriation programme could be implemented if, in future, rational governments come to power in Europe. In short, this would involve creating a new country, probably in Africa, and using it as a sink for unwanted Muslims who were not willing or able to return to their own countries of ancestral origin. It could also be used to receive people of recent immigrant origin who failed the Probationary Citizenship test I believe should apply to all people of immigrant origin for 100 years after their families arrive in the country. This article in the Telegraph touches on some of the same ideas in calling for a new country to be created to receive refugees. It is obviously much more limited that my proposals, and comes at it from a do-gooder perspective. Nonetheless, by pushing this "Refugee Nation" idea, we would help establish a useful meme in the public mind: the idea of creating a new country and using it to resettle unwanted brown people. Once this becomes established as acceptable, plans for Muslim or immvader resettlement will appear much less outrageous and novel.

There is an answer, and it is glaringly obvious. It may sound grandiose, but it is the only practical solution to this persistent and worsening problem.

The solution is simple: for the millions of stateless people around the world, a state of their own. This is why we launched Refugee Nation.

Today, 195 sovereign countries are recognised around the world. But we need one more: a country that any refugee, from anywhere in the world, can call home. A country where each citizen has the same legal rights to reside, work, pursue an education, raise a family, buy and sell property, or start a business – rights that most people have but may not cherish. A country where everyone is an equal citizen, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, or any other personal status. A completely inclusive and compassionate nation, in which every refugee is automatically granted citizenship.

Let us address some of the issues this concept raises:
Where
There is a misconception that every inch of habitable land on Earth is taken.

In fact, island nations like Indonesia and the Philippines have thousands of uninhabited islands. These are often available for sale to private individuals. When I was in the Philippines a number of years ago, someone offered to sell me a small private island for $200,000. The first option would be procuring a single large island, or a series of islands.

Second, there are many large countries with tremendous natural resources and a sparse population. For example, Finland has five million people in a country the size of the United Kingdom, which has 65 million people.

If such a country agreed to carve off a sparsely inhabited area and permanently solve a major ongoing humanitarian crisis, this problem could be resolved almost immediately. A country could be motivated by humanitarian principles, or by some form of compensation from the world community (debt forgiveness, loan guarantees, etc) or wealthy donors.

This approach would generate waves of global goodwill, sincere gratitude from millions of refugees, and new hope for humane people the world over.

A third option would be for a sovereign, sparsely populated country to allow itself to be “taken over,” with the approval of its population. The existing nation's citizens would become a minority, but would be permanently provided for and gain the goodwill of the world. They would also benefit from a sudden influx of many trained professionals and laborers. No new country would need to be formed, and United Nations recognition wouldn't be required. This would eliminate any struggle for independence and sovereignty. Two examples could include Dominica or Micronesia, island nations with less than 100,000 people.

With millions of acres of sparsely populated land around the world, and tens of thousands of uninhabited islands, there is no shortage of available space to house a refugee population equivalent to a small country (and that is if all refugees were to move there, which is highly unlikely). We only need enough political will.

2
comments:

Three Rights which, in my opinion, should be preserved: . 1 - The right to Mono-parenthood in Traditionally Monogamous Societies: see the blog "The Origin Of Sex-Taboo". [in English]. 2 - The right to veto who pays (the taxpayer) - Semi-Direct Democracy: see the blog "Fim-da-Cidadania-Infantil". [in Portuguese].3 - The right to survival of indigenous identities: see the blog "50-SEPARATISM-50." [in English]...P.S.The separatists-50-50 doesn't seek pretexts to deny the Right to survival of others one... the separatists-50-50 only claim the Right to survival of Indigenous Identities (read: the 'globalization-lovers' must respect the rights of others one... and vice versa!)

"I want to develop Finland as an open, linguistically and culturally international country," tweeted Finnish Prime Minister Juha Sipilä soon after the post emerged. "I cannot accept Immonen’s remarks." His finance minister, Alex Stubb, said on Twitter that "Multiculturalism is an asset. That's all I have to say."

Erkki Tuomioja, a member of the Social Democrats, the main opposition party, was a bit more direct. "When multiculturalism and diversity are put into question it must be answered loudly," Tuomioja told Bloomberg News. "There is no such thing as a harmless hate speech, and it’s a short step from there to hate acts. It must not be tolerated."

The biggest response, though, came on Tuesday, when thousands of Finns gathered in Helsinki in defense of multiculturalism. Images and messages of solidarity appeared on social media under the hashtag #meillaeonunelma, or "we have a dream" -- a direct riposte to the beginning of Immonen's statement.